The liberal economic policy adopted by the Kemalist elite in the first years of the Turkish Republic was also reflected in Turkey’s forestry policy. During the 1920s, concessions were given to both domestic and foreign businesses to exploit the timber potential of the nation’s most productive forests. When statism was adopted as the nation’s economic regime during the 1930s, it also became the norm for forestry. Finally, all forests were nationalized in 1945. The state was henceforth, both the owner and the manager of forests. These roles were complemented by the state’s role of conservation. This period also witnessed the emergence of state-managed forest industries, namely state timber factories. State timber factories were gradually privatized in the 1990s and most have ceased operation. Yet forests in Turkey are to this day owned and managed by the state. As it can be seen in this brief summary, the politics and economics of forestry have until recently been a perfect reflection of Turkey’s political and economic history throughout the 20th century. However, while the political economic history of Turkey has been studied extensively, forestry has often been neglected in these discussions. While many facets of statism have long become ‘history’ forestry can be considered as one of the few remaining statist institutions. What were the characteristics of forestry that made it such an inherent part of the nation’s economic life and economic regime? How did state forestry change over time? Why were state forestry industries privatized whereas state ownership and management of forests were never questioned? What does the persistence of state forestry tell us about the nature of the state in modern Turkey? This paper will explore these questions based on archival and ethnographic research. The history of Zingal, a Belgian forestry firm that was contracted by the young Republic to manage the forests south of Ayancik in Sinop province in northwestern Turkey will form the backbone of this study. The historical analysis will be coupled with ethnographic research conducted in Ayancik among forest villagers and state forestry personnel. By answering these questions through this case study, this paper will show the intricate relationship between forestry and nationalism within the larger project of state-making in modern Turkey.